Thermal and Nonthermal Endovenous Ablation Options for Treatment of Superficial Venous Insufficiency

Thrombotic complications after radiofrequency and cyanoacrylate endovenous ablation: Outcomes of a multicenter real-world experience

OBJECTIVE

Chronic venous insufficiency (CVI) affects >40% of the U.S. population; thus, intervention for symptomatic venous disease comprises a large portion of many vascular practices. The treatment of superficial CVI has evolved from open surgical treatment to minimally invasive endovenous closure, including both thermal and nonthermal techniques. Thrombotic complications of thermal ablation have been well reported, with an overall complication rate of <2%. However, a paucity of high-powered, real-world data is available on the thrombotic outcomes of nonthermal techniques. In the present study, we compared the incidence of endovenous heat-induced thrombosis (EHIT) and endovenous glue-induced thrombosis (EGIT) in a large cohort of patients with CVI.

METHODS

A retrospective review was conducted at two tertiary-level institutions of patients who had undergone superficial endovenous ablation from 2018 to 2021. The patient demographics, comorbidities, and periprocedural outcomes were collected through medical record review. A Caprini risk assessment model score was assigned using the information available from the electronic medical records. The patients were categorized by procedure type (ClosureFast [Medtronic Inc, Minneapolis, MN] radiofrequency ablation [RFA] vs VenaSeal [Medtronic Inc] cyanoacrylate glue closure [CAG]). The primary end point was the incidence of EHIT or EGIT. The secondary end point was the incidence of deep vein thrombosis and/or pulmonary embolism.

RESULTS

A total of 803 patients had undergone 1096 procedures during the study period. Their mean age was 62 ± 15 years, and 67% were women. Of the 1096 procedures, 700 were RFA and 396 were CAG procedures, with a combined closure rate of 98% by postprocedure duplex ultrasound at 7 days. The average Caprini score was 5.2 ± 1.8 (RFA, 5.0; vs CAG, 5.4; P < .001). The incidence of EHIT and EGIT was 1.9% and 1.3%, respectively (P = .57). The deep vein thrombosis rate was 0.1% in the RFA cohort and 0.3% in the CAG cohort (P = .81). A comparative analysis of thermal vs nonthermal techniques was performed. A univariate analysis of the risk factors for EHIT and EGIT revealed no significant factors predisposing to thrombotic events.

CONCLUSIONS

The results from the present study have demonstrated the safety of RFA and CAG closure techniques for CVI, with lower thrombotic rates than previously reported. Further work might help to identify how these results can be achieved across all venous ablative techniques for CVI, even for patient populations with advanced venous disease and possibly a greater than average risk of thrombotic events.

Thrombotic complications of superficial endovenous ablation: a contemporary review of thermal and non-thermal techniques

Endovenous ablation has become the preferred means to treat superficial venous insufficiency. Ablative technologies have evolved to include a variety of both thermal and nonthermal techniques. The reported thrombotic complications of endovenous heat induced thrombosis (EHIT) and deep venous thrombosis (DVT) associated with thermal techniques are low (<2% overall). However, the limited data on newer non-thermal technologies suggest these modalities may have thrombotic complication rates upwards of 6%. Additionally, the pathophysiology of thrombotic events related to mechanochemical ablative techniques may differ from EHIT, and thus, may have different implications for management. Described is a case report of a stroke after cyanoacrylate ablation of the great saphenous vein, and a review of the current literature reporting the thrombotic complications associated with current thermal and non-thermal techniques. There exists a need for high volume studies on newer ablative techniques to fully understand their associated thrombotic complications. This review highlights the need for a comprehensive classification system and standard treatment algorithm encompassing of thrombotic complications associated with both thermal and non-thermal ablative techniques.

A comparison of cyanoacrylate glue and radiofrequency ablation techniques in the treatment of superficial venous reflux in CEAP 6 patients

OBJECTIVE

Venous leg ulcers (CEAP [clinical, etiologic, anatomic, pathophysiologic] class 6) represent the most severe form of chronic venous insufficiency. As closure techniques for superficial venous reflux evolve, direct outcome comparisons of treatments are integral, because many studies have already demonstrated that early endovenous intervention improves wound healing. The present study compared the rates of venous wound healing between two techniques of superficial vein closure: ClosureFast radiofrequency ablation (RFA) and adhesive closure (VenaSeal; both Medtronic, Inc, Minneapolis, Minn).

METHODS

We performed a multi-institutional retrospective review of all patients with CEAP class 6 who had undergone closure of their truncal veins from 2015 to 2020. Patients undergoing ClosureFast RFA were compared with those undergoing VenaSeal adhesive closure. The primary endpoint was the interval to wound healing from initial vein closure. The secondary endpoints included ulcer recurrence and infection rates. Bivariate analysis involved the χ², Fisher exact, t, and Wilcoxon rank sum tests. Multivariate linear regression analysis was used to examine the factors affecting the time to wound healing in the most predictive model. Statistical significance was defined as P < .05.

RESULTS

A total of 119 patients with CEAP 6 were included, with a median follow-up of 105 days (interquartile range, 44-208 days). Of the 119 limbs, 68 were treated with RFA and 51 with VenaSeal. Significantly more patients undergoing RFA had had a history of deep vein thrombosis (29% vs 10%; P = .01) and deep venous reflux (82% vs 51%; P = .003). The VenaSeal patients were older (72 years vs 65 years; P = .02) with a greater rate of coronary artery disease (16% vs 37%; P = .01). The median time to wound healing after the procedure was significantly shorter for VenaSeal than for RFA (43 vs 104 days; P = .001). Two RFA patients developed a postprocedure infection. The ulcer recurrence rate was 19.3% (22.1% for RFA vs 13.7% for VenaSeal; P = .25). On multivariate analysis, the treatment modality was the only significant predictor of the time to wound healing. When stratified by ulcer size as small (<3 cm²) vs large (>3 cm²), VenaSeal closure healed the wounds significantly faster for all ulcers.

CONCLUSIONS

ClosureFast and VenaSeal are both safe and effective treatments to eliminate truncal venous insufficiency. VenaSeal showed a superior time to wound healing compared with ClosureFast in both large and small ulcers.

Endovenous laser ablation: A comprehensive review

OBJECTIVE

To provide an evidence-based overview of endovenous laser ablation and describe its role as an effective and durable technique for the management of superficial venous insufficiency.

METHODS

The published literature on the treatment of varicose veins using endovenous laser ablation was reviewed. The literature search focused on the history of endovenous laser ablation, its safety and durability, known complications, and differences in outcomes based on the iterations of fiber type and laser wavelength.

RESULTS

Treatment safety and efficacy of endovenous laser ablation appear to be based on the amount of energy administered over a defined distance, or the linear endovenous energy density. The ideal linear endovenous energy density varies with the laser wavelength and fiber-type. Post-operative pain and bruising may be reduced by the use of higher wavelength fibers or the use of radial or jacket-tip fibers as compared to bare-tip fibers. The incidence of endothermal heat-induced thrombosis remains low and has declined with increasing experience. Reports have demonstrated a greater than 90% technical success rate with saphenous endovenous laser ablation, long-term durability of ablation, and commensurate improvement in quality of life.

CONCLUSIONS

Endovenous laser ablation is a safe and durable treatment option for the management of incompetent superficial and perforator veins of the lower extremities. As an endothermal technology, it remains a key component of the standard of care for the treatment of chronic venous insufficiency.